1) Keynesianism takes the view that the government can curb economic downturns by public sector replacing the falling aggregate demand in an economic recession. Classical economics simply takes the view that the economy simply has to get back to it's balance by the market mechanism and this implies that we have to bear that economic downturn. After it the economy is far healthier. Keynesian economics means that the government tries to manage the economic downturns and hence ease the depth of an economic recession or a depression. (And btw. Keynes talked about many issues, so "Keynesian" is rather a broad definition.)

2) I have a premise: Inflation is due to micro-decisions of greed on the part of the supplier to maximize as much profit as possible without pricing themselves out of the market. — schopenhauer1

Nope.

Inflation, the rise of prices, basically happens because when money loses it's value. If something is high in demand and the supply cannot meet up with it, that is normal market mechanism at work when the prices rise. In your example the supplier is just trying to find the optimum for his profit: higher prices mean less buyers, lower prices more buyers. What is the optimum is one of those things a supplier has to find. Inflation is a monetary phenomenon. Asset inflation is a bit different, but has the same mechanism behind it.

My point remains. It looks like the virus has been over estimated. — I like sushi

No.

I think that you are underestimating the lengths that societies will go to prevent deaths today. Death from pestilence like this pandemic simply isn't tolerated. It simply isn't acceptable. Not by the people and not by the politicians. People dying from cancer or heart disease is tolerated. We haven't gotten a cure for heart disease, it could be caused by a infectious disease and if it could be cured, we would only then in hindsight understand that an infectious disease has terrorized us, but now we don't know it. But this pandemic (like SARS and MERS etc) are preventable and people know that. They could be contained at start. Social distancing works. And people will want the pandemic to be prevented. The economy really doesn't matter.

This is the point you aren't getting. It doesn't matter if the number of deaths are low. The pandemic isn't "over estimated". The US deaths are will break twenty thousand soon and in my country likely we will have, oh my gosh, over 50 people killed likely today or tomorrow. That is not much in either country, yet both countries have now staggering amount of unemployed and both economies are in free fall for the time. That really doesn't matter so much to people. Unlike some people think, societies aren't as neoliberal as they seem and don't put money over human lives. There is social cohesion. I think it is a good thing.

Simply put it, societies will sacrifice their economies in the case of a threat...easily. In this pandemic this is a positive thing. In other crisis situations, it would be ugly. Trust me, if a conflict between China and US would erupt, Trump and even the Democrats would shatter all the prosperity built by the long period of globalization, the friendly ties and international cooperation IN AN HEARTBEAT.

Politically I find it disconcerting that some people are treating it like boon for socialism and almost hoping for a huge prolonged economic down turn - showing no concern for the poorest people around the globe as their more interested in their ideological revolution. — I like sushi

When have the leftist thought that capitalism wasn't crashing down?

I think they have believed always that the capitalist system is on the brink of total collapse and NOW is the time for change. And they will be again disappointed when the system makes it's rebound. And even if they get some things of their agenda through, they won't even be happy about it: It's always just a meager start to curtail the evils of capitalism, which doesn't go far enough.

Another worry is, humans being humans, in 5-6 months people will have pretty much forgotten about this, or that any mention of a possible reoccurrence will cause needless panic and disruption. — I like sushi

They didn't forget 9/11, and they will surely not forget this one. And likely the CDC among others will get more funding. A threat of a pandemic will be there up along with threat of terrorism and threat of war. And when people write the history of the 2020's, this won't be forgotten. It's only "forgotten" if a worse pandemic or disaster hits us, when it's considered a minor tragedy compared to the larger disaster. Do remember that after 1918 people referred the war that just had ended as "The Great War". Little did they know what was going to hit them then 21 years and that they were living the "interwar years".

In a few months this will still likely be doing the rounds in terms of political posturing and media hysteria, but things - other than a hard hit economy - will return to some degree of normality. If some idiots in governments prolong the lockdowns beyond 2-3 months some people around the world will be feeling the economic damage for a couple of decades. — I like sushi

In a few months the World will be surprisingly adapted to the pandemic. Just as now it starts to be obvious that the health care system of New York State will not crash and manages through this reasonably well. But digging mass graves in the US isn't ordinary, I think.

Who knows, but I don't think the lockdowns go beyond 2-3 months. What is likely that the restrictions will be lifted gradually with the restrictions on large public events being the last things they hold on to. And in many places the "lockdown" isn't the Chinese type where you have a curfew literally.

Happy Easter 2020!

You'll get the answer at the earliest in the summer and at the latest next year or so. You see, the lock-down option works instantly, but the effectiveness of the herd immunity strategy can be seen only later.

And the media and politicians, don't have any patience.

Then you're still wrong. — frank

Never said I was right. Especially about the future.

Despite claims to the opposite, the “Swedish model” survives another week, with Swedish doctors and scientists staying course. This week will be crucial. — NOS4A2

Nice to hear that Sweden is close to your heart on this issue!

(Btw. those strategic reserves that my country had (and Sweden hadn't), after nearly a month the PPE from the reserves have been nearly depleted and the first cries that hospitals are running low on facemasks have been picked up by the media. And the government again falls into it's normal bureaucratic ineptitude of dismal performance (as usual). Now they were suckered by shady businessmen into buying half a million useless masks (But hey, they were cheap!!!). At least the administrator in charge resigned.)

No, the one that assumed optimum social distancing predicted 81000 deaths by August.

Go back and listen to what that Swedish epidemiologist said about how we don't know this virus yet. He was right. — frank

I was referring to the higher estimates of hundreds of thousands and even millions.

This is a drop from a prediction of around 240,000, which is a quarter of what we were first told. — Hanover

Because general social distancing has been used, all those models regarding virus epidemics can be thrown off.

Spain has now 342 deaths per 1 million. If the US number (now 54) would climb to that figure, it would be well over 100 000. But to double it, then a totally new twist ought to happen.

The issue is that countries are interconnected economically. Once the bigger players lockdown the rest of the world has little to no choice in the matter - even if the fallout for them is potentially more damaging and long lasting. — I like sushi

Some reasons why there wasn't a way to avoid this:

1) There was already a huge speculative bubble in the global financial markets as the 2008 "Great Recession" was just papered it over. This event came along and burst it.

2) Earlier epidemics (SARS, MERS, Ebola) had been already followed by media and had far lower numbers of death. When this pandemic hit, with higher death toll the media was sure to follow. Governments around the World had to respond.

3) Just social distancing creates problems for the economy. If the countries now in lock-down would have chosen the "Swedish-model", the global economy would still be in recession at least for now.

To put it shortly, there simply is no other option than to have at least a sharp recession. No alternate route. A longer economic depression won't be because of just the pandemic, but many other institutional issues and long term problems. If it happens.

Using the scientific method doesn't mean that one is ignorant of the limitations of the method, on the contrary.

If you seek of objective answers, it shouldn't be surprising to notice that there is the subjective also. And that it's quite important too.

That is a pretty comprehensive report. — I like sushi

Some countries surely will have accurate statistics. Others not. And what's the time frame? Viruses have all the time in the World. If someone dies of Covid-19 in 2023, will that person count?

I’m still not convinced shutting down the world’s economy is a reasonable response (at least not for developing countries). — I like sushi

Firstly, the world economy isn't shut down. I think the supermarket close to you is open. It's simply just a economic recession.

And how would there even be that other option? Tell us, I like sushi.

A censorship on the pandemic? No media outlet ought to report on it? Have people go on as they have? Say perhaos that it's just a nasty flu, but these come and go. I think that news that in some places the morgues are full might get the attention of people and could spread around in

Herd immunity? That's the option you think? Doesn't work to save the economy. I've been watching how Sweden copes with the pandemic and still, even if they have their schools and restaurants open, the economy is in free fall.

So what do you have in mind?

I have little doubt that if the right people in the right positions had the right relationships with Trump, he could easily be talked into supporting what learned people would call a far-left platform across the board, and he would think it was his own brilliant idea that everyone else was too stupid to think of. — Pfhorrest

Yeah, many people think that they can be the Trump-handlers who succeed in getting their agenda through Trump. Perfect example was Steve Bannon. Or Rupert Murdoch (owner of Fox).

They think that Trump is an idiot and that they could control him. Trump might be a great communicator and an idiot, but the thing is that he's uncontrollable. If people just hint to Trump that he's on a leash by this or that, Trump will have a tantrum. You see, other politicians see it as a game of trading favours, trying to get a consensus, keep your side winning. Trump doesn't see it like that. I think he takes these things personally and lacks the focus to understand complex issues.

So if you Pfhorrest think that it's a matter of only the right people with the right agenda (no pun intended with right here) getting the short focus of Trump, that isn't an answer. You see, Trump won't implement anything a push it through as his leadership qualities are nonexistent. In the end he'll just ramble and say incoherent things and nothing would go anywhere. Just think about it. He had (and still has) a firm grip of his party. His party had BOTH HOUSES of the Congress. And Trump could pass... a tax cut.

So don't think Trump will do anything. Actually, the smart Trump voters vote Trump exactly for that reason. For them it's good that the POTUS isn't an equivalent of a Ceasar. Also he makes the media take it's role seriously and do their job and not be the lapdog of the DNC as they would be otherwise.

Words simply can't describe how dumb this country is, we're beyond parody — Maw

A Tragicomedy?

Well, you do start to be like Mexico.

Even the corona virus is racist in USA. — Suto

Well, your health care system just sucks, that's all.

Sure, even in other countries there's a difference in the health between the rich and the poor. And when povetry goes somewhat along racial lines and when covid-19 is deadly for those with underlying health conditions, then that's why you have this result. Add the fact you have a lousy health care system. Here's how bad the downfall has been:

In the mid-20th century, the U.S. was a world leader in life expectancy. For a baby born in 2016, average life expectancy was 78.6 years. That was a drop from 78.7 years in 2015. This drop may sound small, but it was statistically significant. The average life expectancy also dropped by 0.1 years from 2014 to 2015. It was the first drop in life expectancy for all races in the U.S. since 1993 and the first multi-year drop since 1962-1963.

Based on average life expectancy, the United States ranked 31st in the world in 2015 behind a number of countries usually considered less well-developed.

So from first to 31st. Now the US is at place 46 or something.

If you're objective is it to compare this to other types of death, you have to assume the same type of error might exist with other deaths. — Hanover

Then again, there's the data how many people actually died. That is quite accurate, just like births.

That the numbers are estimates is quite common in the cases epidemics and pandemic. The number of soldiers killed in a small war can be far more accurate, in epidemics it never has been.

I think there will be a good consensus on just how many people died in this pandemic in let's say ten years. Then historians and epidemiologists have fought it out then and looked at the statistics carefully.

And naturally the importance of this pandemic is defined by the future: the less similar events happen and especially if they aren't so deadly, then the importance of this pandemic is greater and vice versa. Things can be later seen just as preludes to something else or defining moments of history: all depends what things this Century brings us next.

So what's the actual number of corona deaths?

As of Monday afternoon, 2,738 New York City residents have died from ‘confirmed’ cases of COVID-19, according to the city Department of Health. That’s an average of 245 a day since the previous Monday.

But another 200 city residents are now dying at home each day, compared to 20 to 25 such deaths before the pandemic, said Aja Worthy-Davis, a spokeswoman for the medical examiner’s office. And an untold number of them are unconfirmed.

That’s because the ME’s office is not testing dead bodies for COVID-19. Instead, they’re referring suspected cases to the city’s health department as “probable.”

“If someone dies at home, and we go to the home and there [are] signs of influenza, our medical examiner may determine the cause of death was clearly an influenza-like illness, potentially COVID or an influenza-like illness believed to be COVID,” said Worthy-Davis. “We report all our deaths citywide to the health department, who releases that data to the public.” But the health department does not include that number in the official count unless it is confirmed, a spokesman said.

So basically you could double the numbers and get a rough number of the actual deaths.

They won't disband.

The fact that Biden is worried about the cost of universal health care means he won't do anything else than try to build on the bloated Obamacare, if it even comes to that. Other universal health care systems around the World are far cheaper than the US system. Biden likely won't do anything about things that make people worried like this:

Bernie is out.

Let's see how Bernie is going to persuade his followers to vote Biden.



For more years of Trump?

Didn't the have their first case before Italy?

So I guess they have had the epidemic as Italy well before corona-virus was on everybody's radar. This might be at least one reason.

Look, they took extreme measures against the virus. I've seen vids of guys in Hazmat suits dragging people out of their apartments for not obeying quarantine. Food being delivered on sticks. 76 days of lockdown in Wuhan just ended. Etc etc. Harsh, but effective. Doesn't mean their fatality figures aren't understated. But it's pretty clear to me that they have done well and why. — Baden

Likely the numbers are underestimated. But not much.

I think the Chinese aren't able to hide hundreds of thousands of deaths. Thousands? Sure. If the death toll would be as bad as in Spain, over 400 000 would have been killed.

I just heard him saying that the WHO is China centric, and he's going to review US funding of the WHO. — Punshhh

Of course. Who would need an international organization to fight pandemics?

And likely Trump won't like high numbers of death, so the administration likely try to fudge the numbers lower and hide them. Which will just raise the number of Americans distrusting their government.

↪Hanover My boss's father just died in NYC. He can't go up there to be with family. It sucks. — frank

My best friend, an old schoolmate, died suddenly early last month. I was planning to go with my family and with his other friends to the funeral last Friday. His sister was planning to come from Austria here. The sister naturally couldn't come now and the parents, who are quite old, kindly asked that people wouldn't come to the funeral and proposed that a proper memorial service would be held afterwards at the time of the burial, likely in the summer. With gatherings of over ten people not being permitted, even if funerals are allowed, it's an understandable and reasonable decision.

The pandemic effects our lives in various ways.

True or fake news?

A local newspaper says that thanks to the corona-virus lock down, overall death figures in the US are collapsing:



Especially deaths of children and teens, people under 18 has decreased -20%.


Reasons have said to be lower traffic, less accidents and less drunk people doing stupid things when people stay home. Also the common flu is getting now a beating alongside the corona-virus. They did report that the stats are preliminary. Have not been able to verify it from another media outlet.

So, something good about the pandemic?

All thanks to Russia, actually.

If we had a 1 000 km border in the East with Canada, everything would be different.

4 times more. With no hazy or incorrect predictions.

Then I'm a believer. :wink:

Maybe I am the new Nostradamus! :yum: — Benkei

At least you are very lucky in accurate timing. But :up:

Well, this naturally happened some time ago, but they did have first class equipment, not something from the 1960's. Especially with medical equipment armies tend to have them up to date. The rifles etc. can be old, but not the medical materiel. Hence the equipment would be up to date if the system had been continued (like here). It wasn't. Sweden literally disbanded it's huge wartime army for which it had, unlike Finland, all the equipment in needed to the last pair of skis.

(A Swedish field hospital in Göteborg in 2018. They do still have some, which are now used in Stockholm and are waiting for patients.)

I guess FEMA would have to be given a new directive and increased authority. — frank

Something that might likely happen. Or for example, Homeland Security takes a central role in this as the issue of handling a pandemic likely isn't just left to FEMA (which is already under the United States Department of Homeland Security).

That didn't last long.

Sweden's administration is changing it's course, doesn't go anymore with the "lax restrictions & herd immunity" - policies, but wants go the same road as every other European country. Has to still get the changes passed in the parliament. So likely Swedes will have similar restrictions as everybody else.

So that didn't take much time, actually, roughly two weeks. But I guess they started to get afraid of the death rate compared to their neighbors.

Deaths in Nordic countries now:

Iceland: 4
Finland: 25
Norway: 62
Denmark: 161
Sweden: 373

Now the Swedes might be sorry about getting rid of their Strategic wartime/crisis materiel: Sweden either donated to other countries or simply threw away first-class equipment and kit of 50 field hospitals which included 630 ventilators.

But wouldn't it require something like a depression to break the current power structure? — frank

Why would it? Besides, you alredy have that sharp dramatic downturn.

Prior to 9/11 in the US the security checks on domestic flights were nonexistent. It was a joke. I remember it well when I flew in the states. That changed. So if we are talking about a threat that may kill tens or hundreds of times more people, why think the power structure would have to change? What difficulty is there to understand that pandemics are a threat?

Two years from Dec. 1941. That's when the US entered. At that time, US soldiers practiced with broomsticks because they had no rifles. — frank

Starting from a far smaller military than Belgium, that's quite a thing to do. And once it started going there was no stopping. I guess that the Soviet Union could only produce a similar amount of tanks, but that was about it, all other vehicles the US assistance was important. And the Soviet economy had been in a war footing since, well, the birth of the Soviet Union.

That's false.. there were battles in the Pacific in early 42. — schopenhauer1

(There was also Operation Torch in Northern Africa. And in two years from Pearl Harbour the US was already fighting in mainland Italy.)

So there is a way, if there's the will. So I guess with some effort the US could have an even better system than now.

When Americans have exhausted the wrong ways, they will finally do the right thing. And that can happen quite quickly. And I'm optimistic that the scope of this pandemic will change thinking in America. The only thing is that really learn something here and prepare for the next pandemic and you'll be as agile and flexible as the South Koreans.

IOW, the US would have to privatize crisis response in order to match what SK did. — frank

I'm not so sure about that. Did you have to privatize the armed forces when you were caught with your pants down in Pearl Harbour and the Japanese took the Phillipines so quickly from you? People in the government can do a great job if only they are lead to do so and are given the resources.

Hum, it has been a long time since anyone has mentioned Universal Basic Income. What do you have to say about that? I don't think I am in favor of it. Perhaps that is because I do not know enough about it. — Athena

Universal income is just one check in a larger picture. Basically a "cradle to the grave" social welfare system that pays your rent for a small home, gives you unemployment benefits that you can live and has universal free health care does have positive and negative aspects. First, you don't have beggars on the streets. Or at least, the beggars aren't citizens of your country. You do have a safety network and you won't find yourself living out of your car or on the street. You have also lower crime rates. Criminals really want to be criminals, hardly anybody is forced to crime.

All those are great things. But there are really negative things too. The biggest problem is this kind of system can alienate people from the society. It really spreads apathy and low self esteem. Think about it. Imagine growing up in a family that were both of your parents haven't actually worked in their lives and your grandparents haven't worked either. It is really difficult then for you to educate yourself and get that job. And if the job is working at McDonalds or as a cleaner, you'll notice that actually you won't have much more money to spend than before when being unemployed, only now you have to spend a lot of time in work. The stay home and play with your X-box, surf in the social media or hangout with your other unemployed friends is a "real" option. And when people all around you are unemployed, you get accustomed to it. Many will opt for that. Usually people look for jobs only so long, but once your too old, don't have that great CV, your done.

Would I take a society with the welfare option to one without it even if it has negative consequences? Yes, but then my society works and there's not much corruption. How the system works in reality and not just on paper is very important also.

The US, however, was ranked first in preparedness out of 195 countries. So they do take it seriously. — NOS4A2

That is the interesting part here and that study you linked is informative. Especially now at hindsight. In overall ranking for example South Korea for was ranked far lower (9) and Singapore was 24th, below countries like Brazil!

-The US ranked in "preventing zoonotic diseases" 2nd while South Korea was 23rd and Singapore 53rd

-The US ranked in "real time surveillance and reporting" 7th while South Korea was 3rd and Singapore 57th.

-In the robustness of the health sector to handle the sick the US ranked in capacity in clinics at 12th while here South Korea was 2nd and Singapore 15th.

You should imagine the scene where the head of public health and one or two scientific advisors are talked round by these right wing spin doctors, given the message that we can't risk a shock to the economy right now with the Brexit talks at a critical stage. Dominic Cummings was involved at that stage and the grooming narrative was probably very sophisticated — Punshhh

Well, surely we'll get the truth from historical studies about the events. If there are articles directly saying this, it would be interesting to see.

As I said earlier, the main conduit for the virus coming into the country was air travel at this point and no restrictions at all were implemented, no checks, nothing, this went on for I think a couple of weeks. Until commentators politicians and the public were demanding action to reduce this influx and nothing was done by the government. Then the action taken was an advisory that anyone coming in from countries with many infections, or people with flu like symptoms, should look to stay at home for a week on their return. No checks, nothing. This was followed by the government putting out a plea for everyone to wash their hands frequently. Again no checks, no restrictions at airports. The policy right up to the partial lockdown was please wash your hands, nothing else. — Punshhh

To be fair, I think you would have to compare the response to other countries (like France, Germany, Netherlands etc.) to see if the UK response would really stand out from other countries. I don't think it would. You can see from other examples that especially in January governments around Europe were totally dismissive about the epidemic, in February few measures were taken and in March the whole thing started in earnest. If the lockdown came for UK the 23rd of March, for Germany that general lockdown came just one day earlier (Bavaria issued it on the 20th of March). Here we had it few days earlier and some Eastern European countries opted for a lockdown also rather early, but I guess the time difference is in days, not weeks.

So why the unpreparedness? Why the lack of strategic reserves for these events? Why the disregard? You do take terrorism seriously, so why not these kind of possibilities?

Do you remember Bush's Michael Brown, head of FEMA during Hurricane Katrina? — tim wood

The guy who wanted to quit immediately when Katrina happened and was replaced by a general? Yes.

Why would a sane man dismantle and destroy our programs for preparedness for something exactly like Covid-19, put in place recently in specific response to a similar danger: it does not make sense. — tim wood

Some people want a smaller government! What would be a better place to save and make the government smaller than cutting spending on preparations against something that hasn't happened?

But oh well, UNFORTUNATELY all those drastic cuts that Trump wanted to make on the CDC, those wily bureaucrats wiggled their way to keep funding for their stupid unnecessary prevention programs etc. But if Trump would have had his way, the US would have been in a far worse situation now...

How's Sweden's strategy working out? — Evil

In an interview published on Saturday by Dagens Nyheter, [Prime Minister Stefan Löfven] warned that Sweden may be facing “thousands” of coronavirus deaths, and said the crisis is likely to drag on for months rather than weeks. Meanwhile, newspaper Expressen reported that his Social Democrat-led government may be seeking extraordinary powers to bypass parliament and force through a sterner response to the virus.

Deaths rising 12% and the rate of infections rising also quickly. Sweden is leading the Nordic countries in infections and deaths by any measure.

Thanks for being a sane voice. :up: — frank

I think there has been many sane voices here, as usually there are on a Philosophy Forum.

I myself didn't think this was going to be a big issue exactly because of the SARS, MERS, H1N1 outbreak etc. and the outcome of these outbreaks. Let's remember that WHO was at first against drastic measures at first and only later declared this a pandemic.

And this is what we have to remember with the slow reaction of the West. In hindsight we may have this urge to paint the leaders to be blind fools walking directly to the fire without doing anything and being blissfully ignorant about the possibility and the dangers of a pandemic. This is just how history is written. Any warnings before about a pandemic, which has been a topic of discussion for decades, is going to be seen as this event that was missed. What is evident is that there is going to be a divide between pre-pandemic and post-pandemic era. Just like we think the people of the era pre-1914 to be naive and we have a different viewpoint post WW1 and WW2. What I've said doesn't mean that really wrong decision can have been made, but a bit of slack can be given here.

What I just cannot understand why US President's have not prepared for these emergencies: hurricanes, earthquakes and pandemics with a OPPLAN as the military does for war. These events do come, the administration is judged by it's performance and even in the libertarian US there is a consensus that it's the government's role to react to natural disasters, pandemics and war. Having a gameplan before would make any government be far more responsive and smart.

Why would'nt Johnson follow the kind of draconian lockdown adopted by countries like China and South Korea? — Punshhh

Here I think there is a very good answer to this, as is for why Italy, Spain, France and yes, the UK also, didn't go the way of South Korea, Taiwan or Singapore:

The Asian countries were hit by SARS in 2003, South Korea was the second worst hit country after Saudi-Arabia by the 2015 MERS outbreak. The UK had no deaths from these epidemics. Hence European countries thought they had it under control. The Far East Asian countries had felt the impact of epidemics and had learned their lesson. Just look at the statistics.

SARS (2002-2003) deaths by country:

Taiwan: 84 (671 cases)
South Korea:0 (4 cases)
Singapore: 32 (206)
Italy: 0 (with 4 cases)
Spain: 0 (with 1 case)
UK: 0 (with 4 cases)

The Swine flu was a bit different, but notice it didn't ring so much the alarm bells.
2009 Swine flu (H1N1/09) pandemic:

Taiwan: 35
South Korea: 170
Singapore:19
Italy: 178
Spain: 232
Uk: 457

(In the US the SARS epidemic killed nobody and 2009 H1N1 epidemic 12 469 people.)

The UK thought it could handle these situations well. There was a lot of this attitude that we in Europe and the US are well prepared. A Daily Mail article from October 25th 2019, few weeks before this pandemic started in Wuhan, wrote the following about the UK and pandemics:

No country is fully equipped to deal with the next global pandemic, a major report has claimed.

Scientists say an outbreak of a flu-like illness could sweep across the planet in 36 hours and kill tens of millions due to our constantly-travelling population. But a review of health care systems already in place across the world found just 13 countries had the resources to put up a fight against an 'inevitable' pandemic. Among the countries ranked in the top tier were Britain, the US, Australia, Canada, France and Holland.

See article, worth reading now: A deadly pandemic could sweep the world in hours and kill millions because NO country is fully prepared, report claims

Has the UK known that a pandemic is a threat? Of course! Just to give an example (from likely a multitude of various papers and recommendations), in 2008 a parliamentary committee released
this report which estimated that 75,000 Britons will in die in an inevitable flu pandemic that could kill as many as 50 million people worldwide,. From that report:

A number of other issues have come to our attention where we consider that
action is needed. One of them concerns the close linkage between human and
animal diseases. We have been told that three out of four new emerging infections
in humans have come from animals. Yet there is little coordination between the
intergovernmental systems for conducting surveillance of human and animal
diseases, to the point where, as has been shown in the case of avian influenza, we
are all too often failing to pick up animal infections until they have jumped the
species barrier to humans. There is a need for better coordination here at the
intergovernmental level.

And furthermore:

We feel it appropriate to conclude on a sobering note. We have been told that an
influenza pandemic is overdue and that, when (rather than if) it comes, the effects
could be devastating, particularly if the strain of the virus should be of the H5N1
variety that has been seen in South East Asia in recent years. While much progress
has been made in the last ten years in improving global surveillance and response
systems, much remains to be done if we are to detect new strains of the virus and
counter them before they have had the chance to spread. That requires more
intergovernmental investment in potential source countries in surveillance
programs. This is unlikely to hit the headlines and its impact may not be
immediately apparent, but it is vital to us all.

That was 12 years ago. During the Brown administration. The information has been there and here one shouldn't look at an specific administration or an individual Prime Minister, but the establishment of your country as a whole. There was no wake up call as had been with Singapore, South Korea or Taiwan with SARS. To have a slow response can have more things to do with a slow response from the government medical sector than the political leadership. So if you argue that Boris Johnson was slow to react because of Brexit or for ideological reasons, then there clearly should be an obvious mismatch between the medical professionals who's job this is and the political leadership. This is totally obvious in the Trump case, but I'm not so sure with Johnson. And of course, the conservative party has been ruling the UK for ages, hence this wasn't like they were incompetent because they were new to running a government.

And governments should be preparing this strategy now or, yes, we could find ourselves still stuck in limbo in a few months and with no good options going forward. — Baden

Well, governments should do that, but likely they are just coping with keeping up the health care system now on a day-to-day and fearing how bad it will be until the curve flattens, if they aren't Taiwan, Singapore or South Korea. Thinking about months ahead might be difficult.

But Americans can feel assured everything is going to be just fine because Jared Kushner is involved and is giving advice to Trump. Trump's go-to-man get things done like the Middle East peace process, remember? Jared handled so that so well. Now to organize a response to a pandemic:

Some officials said Mr. Kushner had mainly added another layer of confusion to that response, while taking credit for changes already in progress and failing to deliver on promised improvements. He promoted a nationwide screening website and a widespread network of drive-through testing sites. Neither materialized. He claimed to have helped narrow the rift between his father-in-law and General Motors in a presidential blowup over ventilator production, one administration official said, but the White House is still struggling to procure enough ventilators and other medical equipment.

Perhaps most critical, neither Mr. Kushner nor anyone else can control a president who offers the public radically different messages depending on the day or even the hour, complicating the White House’s effort to get ahead of the crisis.

In fact this myth was so important that it was going to be worth the loss of a million or so people from Corona so that we could stay on track with Brexit and surge ahead with a strong economy. Hence the herd immunity debacle, which was the official UK policy at the beginning of March. — Punshhh

I don't think that the reason had anything to do with Brexit. Besides, I think Johnson hasn't been a similar early denier like Trump was on this issue. If you've followed the discussion here we've talked about the similar policy that Sweden is still following on herd immunity option. They aren't leaving the EU.

The only reason why we are not continuing at full pace with unfettered heard immunity strategy is that the experts told the government that if the hospitals become overwhelmed the death toll would be much higher than if measures were taken to reduce the peak. Something which they couldn't live down when it became exposed in the media. — Punshhh

It's quite obvious that the rising cases of infection and the death toll did scare the UK administration to change course. And the example of Italy is shown on the television. With a polarized political environment, it's would have been a very risky gamble.

Likely we would know the answer which is more better, lock down or trying to get a herd immunity with more lax approach (still with social distancing) only let's say in the summer. Assuming there would be still then a country still with a "let's keep the shop open, have lax rules and hope people follow social distancing guidelines" policy. I think that the lock down option is better, but then again this pandemic could go on for a year and a lock down isn't so great for one year.

Actually that kind of rhetoric simply shows the inability of the regime to do anything about the pandemic, that the people don't have any rights and that the regime is far more afraid of it's own people than the virus.

But some people like "strong" leaders.

Of course. You can be like the Philippine dictator who orders to shoot people.



Ah yes, one of the leaders that Trump likes.